| The respondent, a commissioned officer in the Indian Army, was found to have committed acts of gross misconduct by a Court of Inquiry. |
| The Chief of the Army Staff was of the opinion that his trial by a General Court Martial was inexpedient, and the respondent was removed from service after following the procedure under r. 14 of the Army Rules, 1954. |
| On the question whether r. 14, which gives power to the Central Government to remove an officer without being tried and convicted by Court Martial was in derogation of section 45, , which specifically provides for conviction by court martial and punishment for unbecoming conduct, HELD : The rule is not ultra vires. |
| [451 D] (1) Section 19 of the Act provides that subject to the provisions of the Act and the rules made thereunder the Central Government may remove from service, any person subject to the Act. |
| Therefore, the section itself suggests that there should be rules regarding removal from service, and section 191 (2) (a) of the Act specifically gives power to make a rule providing for the removal from the service of persons subject to the Act. |
| [450 H; 451 A B] (2) Although section 19 uses the words "subject to the provisions of this Act", the section is not subject to section 45. |
| The power under section 19 is independent of the power under section 45, because, while section 19 speaks of removal of a person, section 45 provides that on conviction by Court Martial an officer is liable to be cashiered or to suffer such less punishment as is in the Act mentioned. |
| [451 B D] |
|
|
